https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101489
--- Comment #2 from Harald van Dijk <harald at gigawatt dot nl> --- Ah, thanks for the pointer. Agreed that the signatures are correct based on that, but they are not exactly clear as they make it impossible to tell apart the xf and tf cases. Please consider this as an enhancement request, then, rather than a bug. My reason for filing this bug was that I noticed something in compiler-rt that I suspect may be caused by the unclear libgcc documentation. For the most part, tf implementations are done with long double, but guarded to only apply to platforms where that is correct. This is fine, it leaves functions undefined on other platforms but never results in an incorrect definition. There is however also at least one tf function that is unconditionally done with long double, which matches the signature in the documentation, but is wrong.
